Mono chassis $49 + shipping

orientalexpress · « **Reply #100 on:** 20 May 2012, 11:50 am »

2 black plate and 2 apex jr binding post for me,if u could include 2 IEC and 2 XLR in your group buy also ,that would be great.Thank you for doing this

lapsan

bhakti · « **Reply #101 on:** 20 May 2012, 04:53 pm »

I would love two chassis with the silver face plate and two pairs of the Apex Jr. posts.

Thank you!!

santacore · « **Reply #102 on:** 20 May 2012, 08:46 pm »

I'm still in for 2, preferably with silver face. Thanks.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #103 on:** 20 May 2012, 09:42 pm »

OK, good news, looks like we're up to about 15 or 16...Mike's cutting fee should be minimal, pray for zero...I'll send Mike the quantity and my diagram. I'll also request ETA after he gets the CAD. After he replies I'll quote him and post itemized prices for chassis, cutting, delivery to Logan UT, and lead time to ship.

It just now occurred to me that we could all just commit to individually purchase from Mike, but if someone doesn't pull through to achieve the magic minimum number guaranteed, we're all kind of in limbo...so it still seems ideal for all to prepay me so I can ~~run away with your money~~

make one order meeting the minimum quantity.

I'd appreciate a link to reliable (preferably free) conversion software, pdf to jpg.

genjamon · « **Reply #104 on:** 21 May 2012, 03:44 pm »

Does the length of the run between IEC and AC input on the power supply matter in reducing internal RF or noise? If it does, why not situate the power supply along the side, instead of along the front of the chassis?

I'm considering this option, but the Neutrik power connector gives me pause - not sure I want to get new power cords. Also not sure I want monoblocks, as I'm a little short on direct wall plugins for an extra power cord. Still, it's an attractive group buy situation.

Quote from: James Romeyn on 20 May 2012, 05:56 am

Not pretty but here it is. Note the rear panel is inside view: invert L to R for outside view, XLR left, IEC right. I'll forward this link to TrungT.

XLR: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=092-037 also silver contacts available otherwise identical...gold vs. silver: IMO the gold is a little thicker and smoother, the silver a bit lighter and more detailed, my system is about dead neutral, the amp being digital, I ordered gold. If it was a tube amp I'd lean silver, but as Sean says on TV show Psyche, "I've heard it both ways..."

IEC: http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=090-442 only 10A (certification not specified), but other similar receptacle was rated either 10A or 15A depending on the certification type, so this may be a 15A too.

See above for Apex Jr. short gold insulated binding posts, which are, IMHO, great value, well above average quality, and sturdy.

I twisted and tied the amp/PS umbilical and this layout seems to provide the greatest distance between the AC mains input on the top and the input way down on the bottom, the speaker binding posts in the middle.

As you can see, one pair of binding posts. Open to suggestions for any changes.

Including two fastener holes each for XLR and IEC = 15 sum total.

jtwrace · « **Reply #105 on:** 21 May 2012, 04:04 pm »

If the left connector is the IEC I think you're making a mistake putting it in that location. I'd put it to the far right and the XLR where the IEC is. This keeps the power wires away from the NC400 as Bruno suggests.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #106 on:** 21 May 2012, 04:12 pm »

Quote from: genjamon on 21 May 2012, 03:44 pm

Does the length of the run between IEC and AC input on the power supply matter in reducing internal RF or noise?

Please consider multiple variables. Possibly you missed this below, or possibly I deleted it by accident to minimize clutter (sorry if the latter). Per Bruno the umbilical cord should not go under nor over pcb and IIRC audio input should not cross AC mains nor umbilical cord. TomS twisted and tied the cord, which seems smart. The cord can not be shortened. The above limitations more or less fixes the physical relationship between the two pcb to my diagram.

If pcb swap L/R relationships, and both swivel 90 degrees clockwise, umbilical cord crosses both audio input and speaker output.

Quote

If it does, why not situate the power supply along the side, instead of along the front of the chassis?

Current design has maximum spacing between AC mains input (longer, yes) and audio input and speaker outputs (both quite short). Also, audio input and speaker cable do not cross AC mains nor umbilical cord.

Quote

I'm considering this option, but the Neutrik power connector gives me pause - not sure I want to get new power cords.

Negative. No Neutrik power. Power is standard 10A-15A IEC. XLR is Neutrik female available in gold or silver contacts (I prefer gold but this choice is purely personal).

Quote

Also not sure I want monoblocks, as I'm a little short on direct wall plugins for an extra power cord. Still, it's an attractive group buy situation.

I'm torn on this too but not for lack of AC receptacles in this new construction. This setup is pure analog Trinaural processor based (it's almost impossible to accept stereo's "phantom center" after listening to proper Trinaural). The center channel is most critical, while the L/R can be viewed as "effects". I this case, a 3-ch amp would site the same distance from the C speaker as 3 mono blocks.

But then...this is likely a final purchase for me, and these are killer amps. And I want to tote these around to A-B with other amps, plus my pro musician friends want to hear it. Plus, in the end, even in my system the L/R channels will likely perform audibly better with mono blocks sited next to the speakers. Finally, stereo and 3-channel amps have unique wiring problems. So that's why I decided on the extra clutter.

genjamon · « **Reply #107 on:** 21 May 2012, 04:13 pm »

I initially thought that, too, but then realized it was drawn from the perspective of the INSIDE of the chassis. It might be a counterintuitive drawing approach for some - perhaps many of us - given our typical vantage point of looking from the outside of the chassis. I'm not sure what standard practice is - I'm a total newbie to DIY or design.

jtwrace · « **Reply #108 on:** 21 May 2012, 04:16 pm »

Quote from: James Romeyn on 21 May 2012, 04:12 pm

TomS twisted and tied the cord, which seems smart.

This is recommended by Hypex and is in the data sheet.

genjamon · « **Reply #109 on:** 21 May 2012, 04:20 pm »

Maybe you could label on your drawing where each of the connection points are on the modules? When I've looked at the data sheets for the SMPS and the NC400, it looked to me like you could avoid any wires crossing each other or going under or over pcb's with what I suggested. Maybe I'm not visualizing the location of the connection points the same as you are.

Quote from: James Romeyn on 21 May 2012, 04:12 pm

Please consider multiple variables. Possibly you missed this below, or possibly I deleted it by accident to minimize clutter (sorry if the latter). Per Bruno the umbilical cord should not go under nor over pcb and IIRC audio input should not cross AC mains nor umbilical cord. TomS twisted and tied the cord, which seems smart. The cord can not be shortened. The above limitations more or less fixes the physical relationship between the two pcb to my diagram.

If pcb swap L/R relationships, and both swivel 90 degrees clockwise, umbilical cord crosses both audio input and speaker output.

Current design has maximum spacing between AC mains input (longer, yes) and audio input and speaker outputs (both quite short). Also, audio input and speaker cable do not cross AC mains nor umbilical cord.

Negative. No Neutrik power. Power is standard 10A-15A IEC. XLR is Neutrik female available in gold or silver contacts (I prefer gold but this choice is purely personal).

I'm torn on this too but not for lack of AC receptacles in this new construction. This setup is pure analog Trinaural processor based (it's almost impossible to accept stereo's "phantom center" after listening to proper Trinaural). The center channel is most critical, while the L/R can be viewed as "effects". I this case, a 3-ch amp would site the same distance from the C speaker as 3 mono blocks.

But then...this is likely a final purchase for me, and these are killer amps. And I want to tote these around to A-B with other amps, plus my pro musician friends want to hear it. Plus, in the end, even in my system the L/R channels will likely perform audibly better with mono blocks sited next to the speakers. Finally, stereo and 3-channel amps have unique wiring problems. So that's why I decided on the extra clutter.

mr_bill · « **Reply #110 on:** 21 May 2012, 05:16 pm »

labeling would be a great addition,

jtwrace · « **Reply #111 on:** 21 May 2012, 05:32 pm »

Quote from: mr_bill on 21 May 2012, 05:16 pm

labeling would be a great addition,

This is how I did mine:

James Romeyn · « **Reply #112 on:** 21 May 2012, 06:27 pm »

Jason,
I presume your pcb layout is similar to TomS'?

Your binding post/XLR positions are opposite mine. Looking at it again, yours seem better because of shorter XLR to amp audio input. I'll follow your plan.

Who did your stencil? It looks great.

jtwrace · « **Reply #113 on:** 21 May 2012, 06:30 pm »

Quote from: James Romeyn on 21 May 2012, 06:27 pm

Can you post image of pcb layout?

What PCB?

Quote

Who did your stencil? It looks great.

Me, thanks.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #114 on:** 21 May 2012, 06:32 pm »

Sorry, pcb = amp/ps boards.

jtwrace · « **Reply #115 on:** 21 May 2012, 06:35 pm »

Quote from: James Romeyn on 21 May 2012, 06:32 pm

Sorry, pcb = amp/ps boards.

I'll check later to see if they're on the other computer. I don't know if I took any. TomS' is very similar to mine as I was the first to use this case. The only difference insdie is that my NC400 is square to the SMPS. That's really it.

mr_bill · « **Reply #116 on:** 21 May 2012, 06:47 pm »

Would it not make sense to mount the speaker binding posts vertically rather than horizontally?

I guess it depends if you have your amps on a higher shelf (horizontally makes sense then) or on the floor like I do, where vertically makes sense.

jtwrace · « **Reply #117 on:** 21 May 2012, 06:49 pm »

Quote from: mr_bill on 21 May 2012, 06:47 pm

Would it not make sense to mount the speaker binding posts vertically rather than horizontally?

Personally I'm not crazy about it like that. The cables don't lay flat usually. Not really that big of a deal though. If you were going to run two pairs for bi-wire then yes, I'd do it as you suggest.

TomS · « **Reply #118 on:** 21 May 2012, 06:50 pm »

Quote from: jtwrace on 21 May 2012, 06:35 pm

I'll check later to see if they're on the other computer. I don't know if I took any. TomS' is very similar to mine as I was the first to use this case. The only difference insdie is that my NC400 is square to the SMPS. That's really it.

I did switch the XLR and posts around as I just wanted the input signal as far from power as I could get. Otherwise pretty much the same.

I mounted the posts horizontal as they are next to my speakers (no rack) and I didn't want the wires to have to cross over other stuff side to side. Sometimes squeezing in large spades is a challenge next to an IEC or XLR.

jtwrace · « **Reply #119 on:** 21 May 2012, 06:53 pm »

Quote from: TomS on 21 May 2012, 06:50 pm

I did switch the XLR and posts around as I just wanted the input signal as far from power as I could get. Otherwise pretty much the same.

I mounted the posts horizontal as they are next to my speakers (no rack) and I didn't want the wires to have to cross over other stuff side to side. Sometimes squeezing in large spades is a challenge next to an IEC or XLR.

Right. I was refering to the sketch above on the rear panel layout.